- Capitalism and Alternatives -

On whose hands are the Blood spilt on?

Posted by: Kweassa ( the Great March ) on October 10, 1999 at 17:36:24:

In Reply to: super terrorism. posted by Mad Pete on October 08, 1999 at 16:30:57:

The posting about terrorism reminds me of some of Sartre's writings, where he said "Anti-terrorism, without proper principles of acknowledging the conditions of the terrorists, what they are saying, and what led them to their actions, is no different from turning your back on people who may actually be deprived of justice." I am sorry to say I do not remember the name of the book in which Jean-Paul said that, but I do seem to remember it was about (then) recent atmosphere of anger against Algerian terrorism in France. Some people misinterpret Sartre's statement - supporting terrorism as a justifiable means of accomplishing something.

Socialists under Marxian influence generally(and genuinely) doubt that terrorism actually accomplishes something (especially since Marx's criticism on Blanquism seems to be very agreeable), but are usually are willing to be more lenient on the matter. On the other hand, America's Anti-terrorism policies(which its allies in the Europe treated with a disdain) is especially notorious for doing just the thing that Sartre accused of: unconditional WAR, immediate military action against any types of agression against America, no matter what led to that very terrorist act.

Terrorism may achieve nothing, but if one's plea of help to the world falls under deaf ears, what options they have got left, I can not think of. My own country(Republic of Korea) has once been under harsh and atrocious rule of the Japanese Empire (which makes the Imperial Rule of India look like a picnic(no offense to any Indians who might be out here)), and when the diplomats of then Chosun looked for help, no one was willing. America had already agreed on the Katsura-Taft treaty, which Japan agreed on American rule of the Philipines, and vice versa with Japan's rule of Chosun. The movements for independence have been crushed, and military resistance have been drive out of the peninsula, hopelessly wandering the plains of Manchuria. What options did we have?

These acts of violence against the Japanese rulers are considered as heroistic today. Virtually people from any nation which was under the Imperialist rule of the 19~20th century would agree. These 'resistances' are not unfamiliar even to America and Europe. The American Colonies have fought long and hard against the English, and the people's Resistance were in continuous war against the rule of Nazi Germany.

Would anyone agree to these acts of terrorism if they had taken place today? If the people of Grenada and Panama blow off bombs in an American building, would the people of the world sympathize? If the people of East Timor finally got fed up with the total ignorance of the world powers, and had to start bombing places to get some attention, would the leaders of the world feel something for it? Perhaps guiltiness? Sadly, I doubt.

It took a lot of newspaper headlines, and a thick list of the dead, to finally get America moving to at least LOOK like they were sincerely worried about the peace of the middle-east. Chairman Arafat would agree with me. I do not support terrorism, and I would never even think of taking part in such actions, but there certainly is something more to terrorism, which people should sincerely think about.

Not all the blood spilt are on the terrorist's hands. The hands of the leaders of the world, AND the citizens of the world, are also dripping with blood.